Quote:
|
That it's not necessary to abort at "viability" says nothing at all about whether or not a pre-viability fetus is a live human being - which is the issue.
|
its only the issue for your side. a starting point for life cant really be determined, so its pointless.
Quote:
|
It is not known when a fetus may be considered a live human being, although it certainly is alive, and is of the species homo sapiens, after fertilization. The "cutoff point", if any, that might permit abortion, is not known. Lots of arbitrary "points" have been suggested, uninformed by any convincing supporting argument. That should be determined by a serious debate by philosophers, ethicists, constitutional law experts, and medical scientists from BOTH sides, in a public and thorough debate. That debate has never taken place, because the USSC in Roe v. Wade short-circuited any real debate with a judicial fait accompli, in one of the worst reasoned decisions in the history of the USSC. It was if the referee declared a winner before the contest began. Having gotten what they wanted with no effort, the pro-aborts were not interested in any real national debate, but rather focussed on preventing any whittling away of the abortion right, largely by pro-abortion slogans and politicking. I, however, think that it is certainly a reasonable conjecture that the fetus is a live human being (after all, all agree that it becomes one), and therefore until a REAL national debate of the kind that I desctibed above resolves the issue, prudent public policy should be to prohibit almost all abortions.
|
when life begins is irrelevant because it cant be known. you could say the exact same about sperm - certainly alive and of the same species. the cut off point is known as viability, because its the only practical solution. youre not looking for a solution if your applying subjective opinion to determine that an abortion is never okay.
"BOTH sides"
haha. only those who view the situation scientifically can be trusted with an objective decision. the others would simply claim to know something they couldnt possibly know. supposing it did come down the the beginning of life, people who come to conclusions before conducting any tests cant be trusted. its like asking for both sides of the creationism/evolution debate to be heard, as if thats fair. one is based on reality, the other is pure conjecture.
roe v wade wasnt worst reasoned. it made the best possible decision based on the available information. yes, its reasonable to consider a fetus to be alive, but the same could be said of many stages of human life in its distinct forms, which is why thats a pointless argument.
fact cant be determined by debate, only by observation.